The effect of CSR content and media on reputation and stakeholder communication

June 2014

Master thesis Communication Science Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam Amsterdam, 27-06-2014 Student: Vera Engelbertink

2523445 Advisor: Dr. A.S. Walter Second advisor: Dr. F. Schultz

2

Abstract

Even though CSR communication is not a new concept, still a lot of connections between

variables influencing its effectiveness are missing. This study therefore aims to better

understand the influence of CSR communicated messages and media type on the

companies’ reputation and the willingness of stakeholders to share or react to the

messages communicated. The results of the online experiment showed no influence of

intrinsic, extrinsic or combined messages on reputation, secondary communication and

reactions. Nor did media type show any significance on the outcome variables. This

study did however make an effort by contributing to the discussion surrounding CSR

communication and its dysfunctional effects. Furthermore, a new manipulation method

for intrinsic, extrinsic and combined motivated messages was developed and

suggestions and directions were made for future research.

3

1 Introduction

“For nearly 11 years, now, we have been on this mission; we call it, “climbing Mt.

Sustainability”, a mountain higher than Everest, to meet at that point at the top that

symbolizes zero footprint—zero environmental impact.” – Anderson (2005)

This quote by entrepreneur Ray Anderson illustrates the struggle businesses have when

it comes to implementing Corporate Social Responsibility. Corporate Social

Responsibility (CSR) is not a new concept; companies have struggled with the issue of

responsibility to society for decades (Carroll, 1991). The reporting of CSR activities has

increased tremendously over the past years with 80% of the 250 largest companies

worldwide issuing CSR reports (Du et al., 2010). However, the climb up the mountain is

still a steep and unclear one for many corporations. Should they take the rougher path

or the easier one? Do they want to reach the top or are they satisfied with making it

halfway?

The main reason behind the growing number of CSR activities is the influence of

pressure groups such as environmentalists and social activists on managers (Schnietz &

Epstein, 2005). The changing roles of stakeholders and their influence on corporations

has also forced them to take the climb up ‘Mt. Sustainability’. The growing pressure of

stakeholders forces companies to not only expose their stakeholders to their CSR efforts

but also engage them in the process (Fieseler et al., 2010). New media and globalization

have played an accelerating role in this respect. Customers and stakeholders can engage

in direct dialogue with corporations around the world, simply by commenting on a

Facebook post or sending out a tweet. Stakeholders expect more of corporations and in

order to keep them satisfied, corporations often have no choice but to meet those

expectations.

What remains a delicate matter in CSR strategies is how to communicate about it.

The problem that is often encountered by companies is the amount of stakeholder

scepticism towards what is communicated about the CSR activities they are involved in

(Du et al., 2010; Schultz & Wehmeier, 2010; Yoon et al., 2006;). The way in which

stakeholders think or feel positively about an organization depends on the motives that

4

are communicated. These can be divided into intrinsic; denying any business-motives,

and extrinsic motives; acknowledging the benefits a company gains from engaging in the

activity (Du et al. 2010).

The new media field has shifted the power landscape of stakeholders and

companies need to be more delicate in how to communicate to them, since negative

information can be easily shared online. Positive messages about companies going viral

on the Internet can bring a lot of favourable and free publicity. Concepts such as

secondary communication and reactions, the willingness to share or react to messages

received, are therefore expected to play an increasingly important role in corporate

communication.

Since the field of intrinsic and extrinsic motives and secondary communication

and reactions are both relatively new in the field of communication, it would be

interesting to investigate these concepts in relation to corporate CSR communication.

This study therefore aims to investigate the effect of CSR content and media type

selection on CSR outcomes of reputation, secondary communication and secondary

reactions. Therefore the following general research question is formulated:

What are the combined effects of CSR communication content and media type on

reputation, secondary communication and reactions moderated by fulfilment of

stakeholder expectations?

This study uses a 3 x 3 between participants design in an online experiment.

First, a literature study will illustrate the research gaps and the hypotheses of this study

are formulated. The following chapter will describe the methods used to study the

effects of CSR content, media type and expectation fulfilment on corporate reputation,

secondary communication and secondary reactions. The main findings of this study,

which can be found in the results section, found no significant relation between

communicated content and media type on corporate reputation and secondary

communication and reactions. These findings are discussed in the conclusion and

discussion section, along the limitations of the study and suggestions for future research.

5

2 Theoretical Framework

2.1 Introduction to CSR

The definition of CSR has often changed over time (Schultz & Wehmeier, 2010).

The characterization of CSR by Carroll (1991) entails that there are four kinds of social

responsibilities that make up CSR; economic, legal, ethical and philanthropic. This is also

called the ‘pyramid of corporate social responsibility’ (Carroll, 1991). These ethical and

philanthropic dimensions are increasingly more ‘expected’ than ‘desired’ by

stakeholders (Alaniz et al., 2010). This traditional definition of CSR lays the foundation,

however different views on what it entails and how it should be used remain. Generally

speaking, there tend to be two prominent views on CSR in corporate communication;

the instrumental and political-normative view (Schultz et al, 2013).

The instrumental view of CSR sees it as a strategic management tool that can

increase financial performance and improve reputation of the company (Schultz et al,

2013). This view emphasizes the idea that CSR is nowadays often seen as a strategic

instrument in obtaining legitimacy from stakeholders (Schultz & Wehmeier, 2011). The

assumption is that stakeholders have higher expectations of companies and in engaging

in CSR, companies better adapt to the expectations of stakeholders. This should thereby

create a favourable reputation among stakeholders that can help build competitive

advantage (Fieseler et al., 2011).

On the other hand, the political normative view highlights the creation of norms

and values by corporations by setting a precedent for behaving responsibly in society

through engaging in CSR activities (Schultz et al, 2013). Globalization reduces the power

of governments and cultural identification, in terms of sense of belonging to a social

community, declines because of individualization. This means that, due to globalization,

corporations are taking over the role of governments in terms of setting behavioural

standards and the agenda setting of issues (Schultz et al., 2013). This view thereby

suggests that companies are taking a leading role in our lives and increasingly gaining

more influence.

6

2.2 Dysfunctional effects of CSR

Even though these views all present CSR as the ultimate solution in gaining a favourable

reputation among stakeholders with only positive outcomes, communicating CSR

activities can also have its negative effects. It has been proven that the more companies

communicate about their ethical and social ambitions, “the more likely they are to

attract critical stakeholder attention” (Morsing & Schultz, 2006, p. 323). Investing in CSR

and communicating this to stakeholders, raises certain expectation and binds

corporations to uphold these expectations (Schultz & Wehmeier, 2010). This can result

in the company over-communicating and publicly exaggerating their CSR efforts, which

in turn produces distrust, as argued by Schultz & Wehmeier (2010), or so-called

stakeholder scepticism.

This distrust of stakeholders in or scepticism about a corporation, possibly leads

to a downward spiral of legitimacy (Schultz & Wehmeier, 2010). Furthermore, because

corporations will therefore increase their CSR efforts, this might make them less

legitimate (Schultz & Wehmeier, 2010). Yoon et al. (2006) also talk about this ‘backfire

effect’ of CSR. They argue that CSR activities backfire when the underlying motives do

not seem sincere to the stakeholders. This thus raises the question if companies should

actively communicate about their CSR activities actively and if they do, what the right

strategy would be to implement this.

2.3 Reputation and CSR

Corporate reputation can be defined as “a stakeholder’s overall evaluation of a company

over time” (Gotsi & Wilson, 2001, p. 29). Reputation is nowadays believed to be a vital

instrument for the survival of organizations (Gray & Balmer, 1998). Furthermore, it has

been proven that customers tend to be more loyal to an organization when the

perceptions of its reputation and image were strongly favourable (Nguyen & Leblanc,

2001). The terms image and reputation are often used synonymously and regarded as

interchangeable, however some regard them as different concepts (Gotsi & Wilson,

2001). For the purpose of this study, corporate image and reputation are regarded as

interchangeable concepts.

7

Since CSR is nowadays also often seen as a managerial strategic instrument to

enhance the reputation of the organization (Mutch & Aiken, 2009; Schultz & Wehmeier,

2010), it can be argued that the two are unmistakably interrelated. Even though the shift

of companies towards implementing CSR strategies is sometimes met with scepticism,

corporations that connect their CSR activities to their corporate vision and brand are

more likely to have a more positive reputation (Argenti & Druckenmiller, 2004).

As companies are expected to behave more responsibly it is inevitable that they

also want to show this to their stakeholders more often. Demonstrating the actions and

policies a company undertakes to meet those expectations can help build reputation

among stakeholders; however failing to do so can become a reputational risk (Fombrun,

2005). Furthermore, Schnietz & Epstein (2005) found evidence that companies with a

reputation linked to social responsibility were protected against financial losses during

a corporate crisis. Additionally, a study by Yoon et al. (2006) proves that a company’s

image can be improved when consumers perceive the CSR activities of a company as

sincere; the expectations of stakeholders would therefore be met. Siltaoja (2006) also

relates reputation to whether or not expectations of stakeholders can be met. It can

therefore be argued that stakeholder expectations might have a moderating effect on

reputation in this respect.

2.4 Secondary communication and reactions

It seems that stakeholders have increasing power over companies and their

expectations and perceptions play an important role in shaping CSR policy. Not only are

they powerful in determining CSR activities, but “can also serve as an informal yet highly

credible CSR communication channel” (Du et al., 2010, p. 14). With the increased

popularity of social media sites such as Facebook, the power of consumer word-of-

mouth has also amplified (Du et al., 2010). Word-of-mouth (WOM) involves the sharing

of attitudes, opinions and reactions about companies with other people (Jansen et al.,

2009). It is a very influential marketing tool but hard to influence by companies

themselves because it is based on social networking and trust in the people in that social

network (Jansen et al., 2009). Since our social network increasingly takes place only, it

is a logical consequence that we engage in WOM online. Research shows that people

increasingly tend to trust the opinions of other people outside of their personal social

8

network (Jansen et al., 2009). This is also known as electronic word-of-mouth or eWOM

(Jansen et al., 2009).

Schultz et al. (2011) describe eWOM as secondary crisis communication, namely

the assessing of intentions to forward and share information with others and leave

comments. They also attribute a behavioural aspect, secondary crisis reactions, which

entail in the study by Schultz et al. (2011) the willingness to boycott the organization

and persuade others to do so as well. In crisis communication the forwarding of and

reactions to the event will be negative, however for the purpose of this study a broader

definition is used namely secondary communication and secondary reactions, which do

not necessarily have to be negative.

One of the fundamental traits of social media is that people can share, create and

edit their own content (Kietzmann et al., 2011). A study by Schultz et al. (2011) on

secondary communication in crises proves that people were less likely to communicate

negatively about the organization when news was received via social media than via a

newspaper. Also the traits of social media that allow people to share and react to content

more quickly leads to the question whether people would be more willing to

communicate about the CSR activity communicated via social media than traditional

media.

However, as trust plays an important role in deciding to share information with

others (Jansen et al., 2009) it could be argued that people would be even more likely to

forward information when information is received by a non-company source that they

trust. Ho and Dempsey (2010) argue that motivations to forward online content are

based on the desire of people to differentiate themselves from others and establish their

own identity. These studies show why people would be more willing to forward online

content and under which conditions. However, it would also be interesting to know

what kind of content is more likely to be forwarded, especially in relation to CSR

communication.

2.5 CSR communication content

The complexity of CSR communication commands a more in-depth study to what

is communicated. Du et al. (2010) argue that communicating CSR content often involves

the CSR commitment, impact, motives and CSR fit of the company to the activities.

9

According to them it is crucial to reduce stakeholder scepticism, which relates to the

backfire effect of Yoon et al. (2006), in the respect that the underlying motives of the

CSR activities the company is involved in might not seem sincere. Furthermore, it is

often not the realization that companies have a self-interest motive to engage in CSR but

that they have been deceptive about it (Aitken & Mutch, 2009).

This therefore brings to mind how companies should communicate and what

they should emphasize in CSR communication; should companies openly communicate

their motives or would that only lead to more backfire effects? According to Du et al.

(2010) the nuance lies between the distinction of intrinsic and extrinsic motivated

messages. The terms intrinsic and extrinsic motivation are often explained in the

context of personal motivation where intrinsic motivation is defined as conducting an

activity for fun without external rewards. Extrinsic motivation is defined as doing

something to attain a certain outcome (Ryan & Deci, 2000). In the light of CSR

communication, intrinsic motives can be seen as denying any business-related motives

of engaging in CSR thus portraying the idea that this motivation comes from within the

company and that there are no ulterior motives in place (Du et al., 2010). Furthermore,

studies often assume that consumers are aware of the ulterior motives of a company to

engage in CSR activities, such as reputation enhancement and financial benefits

(Forehand & Grier, 2003; Yoon et al., 2006).

Extrinsic messages would contain acknowledgement of the underlying motives

and show that CSR is seen as an instrumental tool for the organization (Du et al., 2010).

According to Forehand & Grier (2003), this extrinsic approach can reduce stakeholder

scepticism. Being honest about the intention with CSR should therefore decrease

distrust and potentially decrease backfire effect. Furthermore, a study by Ellen et al

(2006) showed that especially the combination of intrinsic and extrinsic motivations led

to more positive reactions. Being honest about the companies’ intention besides naming

the intrinsic motivations should inhibit the effects of stakeholder scepticism, thereby

leading to a more positive stakeholder reactions than communicating simply intrinsic or

extrinsic motivations (Forehand & Grier, 2003). Therefore, the following hypotheses are

formulated:

H1a: The combined intrinsic and extrinsic messages have a more positive effect

on reputation than intrinsic messages or extrinsic messages

10

H1b: The combined intrinsic and extrinsic messages lead to more secondary

communication than intrinsic messages or extrinsic messages

H1c: The combined intrinsic and extrinsic messages lead to more positive

secondary reactions than intrinsic messages or extrinsic messages

Since involving oneself in CSR activities raises expectations, it is assumed that not

being able to meet those expectations has a negative effect on stakeholder’s perception

of a company’s reputation. Furthermore, research has shown that when the

dissatisfaction with a company increases, the tendency to engage in negative WOM

increases as well (Richins, 1983). It is therefore assumed that fulfilment of expectations

moderates the relationship between content communicated and reputation, secondary

communication and secondary reactions. Consequently, the following hypotheses are

formulated:

H2a: Expectation fulfilment moderates the relationship between CSR

communication content and reputation in that reputation is more negative when

expectations cannot be fulfilled.

H2b: Expectation fulfilment moderates the relationship between CSR

communication content and secondary communication in that it leads to more

secondary communication when expectations cannot be fulfilled.

H2c: Expectation fulfilment moderates the relationship between CSR

communication content and secondary reactions in that it leads to more negative

secondary reactions when expectations cannot be fulfilled.

2.6 CSR communication channels

The sources through which the CSR activities are communicated have also proven

to be important determinants of stakeholder evaluation. Social media such as Twitter

and Facebook have changed the playing field in terms of corporate communication.

Social media can be defined as “a group of Internet-based applications that build on the

ideological and technological foundations of Web 2.0, and that allow the creation and

exchange of User Generated Content” (Kaplan & Haenlein, 2010, p. 61). The rise of new

media has forced companies to change the way they think about communicating

11

towards their stakeholders. There is a gap between the expectations of the stakeholders

and the CSR agenda of the organizations, which depends on the capacity of the company

to communicate about it (Colleoni, 2013). Even though companies are very committed

to their CSR policy, they often fail to communicate actively about it (Fieseler et al., 2011).

When looking at classic communication studies, one can distinguish between

one-way and two-way communication. Research has shown that two-way symmetrical

model of communication is the most effective (Grunig et al. 1995). Social media seem to

possess the traits that fit better to the “normative ideal of two-way communication

within public relations” (Schultz et al, 2011, p. 22) instead of traditional media. Online

communication has become increasingly important as it allows companies to engage in

dialogue with stakeholders (Colleoni, 2013). Therefore, dialogue with stakeholders has

increasingly become a part of mainstream business (Fieseler et al., 2010).

However many organizations still adopt a one-way strategy of communication

that suits traditional media. Traditional media such as TV and newspapers have long

played a role in constructing components, such as identifying actors and issues that will

influence public opinion about organizations (Schultz et al., 2013). In new media, this

form of one-way communication also takes place. According to a study by Colleoni

(2013), organizations with a CSR agenda often adopt a self-centred communication

strategy in which they do not engage in interaction with their online community instead

of engaging in dialogue. The choice of a one-way strategy can be strategic as it ‘gives

sense’ to stakeholders about CSR activities (Morsing & Schultz, 2006) and doesn’t

encourage protest groups to break up dialogue and causing a backfire effect of CSR

(Schultz & Wehmeier, 2010).

This last argument illustrates the downside to engaging in dialogue with

stakeholders. According to Schultz & Wehmeier (2010) dialogical communication can

lead to cynicism and distrust when it is used as an instrument. This is also explained by

the fact that dialogue is often emotionally and morally loaded and therefore can easily

be used by protest movements (Schultz & Wehmeier, 2010), causing a backfire effect as

this might lead to negative publicity. They therefore suggest that “defaulted

communication” might be more appropriate in avoiding a downward spiral of

legitimacy) which refers to a silent communication strategy as this avoids ‘sense giving’

and thereby reducing scepticism (Schultz & Wehmeier, 2010).

12

However, Du et al. (2010) argue that stakeholders will perceive the organization

as more self-centred when receiving messages via corporate sources than when they

receive CSR communication through non-corporate sources. Furthermore, corporate

sources would trigger more scepticism and have lower credibility (Du et al., 2010). It

could also be the case that companies do not want to actively communicate about their

CSR agenda since it could be a strategy to avoid disappointments when companies

cannot live up to the expectations of stakeholders (Schultz & Wehmeier, 2010). Yoon et

al. (2006) provide evidence that CSR only improved company evaluations when a

sincere motive was in place and when the consumer learned about it from a neutral

source instead of from a company source.

As a non-company source seems to have the most positive outcomes and is best

in reducing the backfire effect of CSR, it is argued that this would be the most excellent

communication source, followed by engaging in dialogue via social media (Facebook)

and lastly a one-way communication channel (news article). To be able to study the

effect of different sources on reputation, secondary communication and secondary

reactions the following hypotheses are formulated:

H3a: CSR communication via a non-company source has a more positive effect on

reputation than communication via Facebook, which in turn has a more positive

effect than via a news article.

H3b: CSR communication via a non-company source leads to more secondary

communication than communication via Facebook, which in turn leads to more

secondary communication than via a news article.

H3c: CSR communication via a non-company source leads to less negative

secondary reactions than communication via Facebook, which in turn leads to

fewer negative secondary reactions than via a news article.

In order to illustrate the current study a conceptual model has been drawn which can be

found in Appendix A.

13

3 Methodology

3.1 Design and participants

In order to test the hypotheses, an online experiment was conducted. This study

consisted of two independent variables, with three conditions in each of the variables.

This therefore resulted in a 3 (intrinsic content versus extrinsic content versus intrinsic

and extrinsic content) x 3 (Facebook, news article and non-company source) between

participants design.

Participants were recruited via direct email and social media sites such as

Facebook, Twitter and LinkedIn. The participants were all randomly assigned to one of

the 9 conditions of each independent variable. In total 344 participants entered the

online questionnaire of which 280 completed it. The final dataset therefore consisted

out of 280 participants (N = 280), with an average of 31 per condition. Table 1 shows the

research design matrix of the different conditions. The non-company source/extrinsic

condition ended up being rather below the average (N = 22). This could cause some bias

in testing the results and therefore needs to be controlled for in the different analyses.

Of the respondents, 61 percent were female (N= 171) and 39 percent male (N=

(109). The average age was M= 34.72 with a standard deviation of SD= 14.59. Of the

respondents, 80.7 percent (N = 226) had a Bachelor degree or higher and 36.1 percent

(N = 101) worked fulltime.

Table 1. Research design matrix

Intrinsic Extrinsic Intrinsic and Extrinsic

Facebook Group 1

N = 37

Group 4

N = 34

Group 7

N = 35

News article Group 2

N = 28

Group 5

N = 37

Group 8

N = 29

Non-company source Group 3

N = 28

Group 6

N = 22

Group 9

N =30

14

3.2 Pre-test stimuli

Before conducting the actual study, a pre-test was done to check the reliability of the

manipulation. A total of 60 respondents participated in the pre-test. The respondents

were invited via social media sites Facebook, LinkedIn and Twitter to conduct the online

questionnaire. After a welcome screen they were randomly assigned to each of the 9

conditions. Directly after reading the text the respondents had to answer three

statements related to the manipulation of the intrinsic, extrinsic or combination of

intrinsic and extrinsic messages. The second measurement was indicating what kind of

message they had read; a Facebook message, online news article or email from a friend.

Furthermore, the respondents filled in their demographics such as age, education and

occupation.

The results of the manipulation pre-test were not completely as desired as the

means for the manipulation conditions were below 4 on the seven-point Likert scale.

Nor did some of the means show the right direction. Therefore, the stimuli were

adjusted and more exaggerated. Clearer examples of either intrinsic or extrinsic motives

were put in the text. In the intrinsic text the focus was put more on the genuineness of

the intrinsic motives, relating them to the core business and history of Company X. In

the extrinsic condition the focus was brought more towards motives such as profit and

how the involvement in the CSR activity would benefit Company X in other ways.

3.3 Procedure

The respondents were invited via email, Facebook, LinkedIn and Twitter to

participate in the online survey. After a short introduction explaining the purpose of the

study, the participants were asked if they knew the term CSR. After answering they were

presented with a short text explaining what CSR is and answered two general

statements related to expectation fulfilment of CSR. Furthermore, the participants read a

text about fictional Company X, a food manufacturer of everyday products such as

toothpaste and washing detergent. Following the introduction of Company X, the

participants read the stimulus text about fictional Company X that decided to invest in a

youth work program as a CSR activity, which can be found in Appendix D.

15

The independent variable CSR communication content was manipulated by

presenting the participants with an intrinsic CSR message, extrinsic CSR message or a

combination of both intrinsic and extrinsic CSR message to which they were assigned

randomly. The intrinsic text was written in a way that Company X does not benefit from

engaging in CSR activities, that they only do it to give something back to community and

see it as part of their core business. The extrinsic text openly discussed the benefits

Company X would gain from engaging in this CSR activity, not holding back on

information. The intrinsic and extrinsic text was a combination of both messages; the

company emphasizing doing it because they want to give something back and see it as

their core business but also confessing that it gains benefits from the activity.

Additionally, the manipulation of independent variable CSR communication

channels was done by putting the CSR communication content presented to the

participants in either a fake news article on an online news site, a Facebook post by

Company X or presented in a way that a non-company source, in this case an

acquaintance, emails the message personally to the participant (see Appendix D).

After reading the text, the participants answered two specific questions related to

expectations fulfilment, followed by the statements regarding the dependent variables

reputation and secondary communication and reactions. Furthermore, the control

variables were entered in the questionnaire with two statements related to non-

company source reliability randomly put in the questionnaire separately. The

participants had to indicate their use of several media in number of hours and indicate

how reliable they perceived the different media types to be. Subsequently, participants

answered another statement of non-company source reliability, followed by the

statements regarding the manipulation check. Finally, the respondents filled in

demographical questions such as gender, age, level of education and occupation, after

which they were thanked and presented with an email address if they wanted more

information about the study. The complete questionnaire can be found in Appendix B.

3.4 Dependent variables

The dependent variable reputation was measured on the hand of 8 items from The

Reputation Quotient, as developed by Formbrun, Gardberg and Sever (2000) which is

proven a reliable measurement of corporate reputation in the Netherlands (Groenland,

16

2002). This was combined with one statement from the Customer Based Corporate

Reputation Scale as designed by Walsh et al. (2009). A principal axis factor analysis was

conducted on the 9 items with oblique rotation (direct oblimin). The Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin

measure verified the sampling adequacy for the analysis, KMO = 0.88 and the KMO

values for the individual items were all above .80, which is well above the limit of .5

(Field, 2013). Table 2 (see Appendix C) shows the factor loadings after rotation. Even

though unexpected, the rotation showed a loading of 2 different factors. Looking at the

loading of the factors, even though no separate factors were expected, it could show that

factor 1 represents more personal perceptions and factor 2 more characteristics of the

company. However, the correlation matrix did show a high correlation between the

factors, meaning that items are interrelated. The scale with a total of 9 statements had a

high reliability (Cronbach’s α = .90).

The dependent variable secondary communication was measured on the hand of

items developed by Schultz et al. (2011) on secondary crisis communication. They were

adapted to fit the context of CSR communication. These items were ‘I am likely to share

this message with other people, ‘I am likely to tell my friends about this message’ and ‘I am

likely to react to this message’. A principal axis factor analysis was conducted on the

items with oblique rotation (direct oblimin). The Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin measure verified

the sampling adequacy for the analysis, KMO = 0.68 and the KMO values for the

individual items were all above .80, which is above the limit of .5 (Field, 2013). All items

loaded on one factor as can be seen in Table 3 in Appendix C, and so it can be assumed

that these 3 items represent secondary communication properly. The scale proved

reliable (Cronbach’s α = .90).

Secondary reactions as the final dependent variable was not combined into a

scale but consisted out of 2 statements, adapted from Coombs & Holladay (2008). These

were measured according to how likely the participants were to ‘say something negative

about Company X’ and ‘recommend Company X to others’.

3.5 Moderator variable

The moderator variable ‘expectation fulfilment’ was measured on the basis of several

questions. Two general statements related to expectations of participants regarding CSR

were asked before the manipulation and two statements with regard to Company X and

17

CSR expectations were asked directly after the manipulation. As two factors were

expected, a principal axis factor analyses was conducted on the four items with

orthogonal rotation (varimax). The Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin measure verified the sample

(KMO = .58), and all KMO values for the individual items were above the minimum of .5.

Table 4 (see Appendix C) shows the factor loading after rotation where the items that

cluster on the same factor suggest that factor 1 represents the expectation fulfilment

after the manipulation (specific) and factor 2 represents expectation fulfilment of CSR

before the manipulation (general). These statements were combined in a scale with a

high reliability (Cronbach’s α = .76).

3.6 Manipulation check and control variables

Asking a question whether the participants were familiar with Corporate Social

Responsibility checked the manipulation. After, followed a brief description of what CSR

entails. Asking several questions checked the manipulation of the intrinsic, extrinsic or

combined messages. These were for example ‘Company X does not gain any business

outcomes from engagement in this CSR activity’ for an intrinsic message and ‘Company X

is honest about its business outcomes for engagement in this CSR activity’. The two

statements for the extrinsic condition were combined into a scale with a high reliability

(Cronbach’s α = .91). Furthermore, asking the participants which media type they have

seen also checked the media type manipulation.

To check for any bias in media use, several media types were selected and the

participants were asked to state how often they used certain media types. Furthermore,

the reliability of media types was also checked. Additionally, two statements related to

the perceived credibility of a non-company source were given to measure how credible

the participants found information given by a friend.

18

4 Results

This study conducted research on the combined effects of different types of CSR

communication content and three different media types on the dependent variables

reputation, secondary communication and reactions. The variable expectation fulfilment

was also entered in the model to measure a moderation effect. The main research

question was divided into 6 hypotheses of which the tested results are given below.

4.1 Test of manipulation and control variables

The present study consisted of two manipulations, namely CSR content type with either

an intrinsic, extrinsic or combined message and three media types namely Facebook,

news article and non-company source. Preliminary to testing the hypotheses, the extent

to which the manipulation worked was tested. The manipulation of CSR content type

was checked with an independent t-test. On average, the respondents in the intrinsic

condition did score higher on the intrinsic manipulation check (M = 3.3, SE = 0.14) than

those not in that condition (M = 3.19, SE = 0.1). This difference, -0.11, BCa 95% CI [-.422,

206], was however not significant t(280) = -.66, p = .947.

The results of the extrinsic condition showed that on average the respondents in

the extrinsic condition scored higher on the manipulation scale of extrinsic content type

(M = 4.30, SE = 0.12) compared to those not in the extrinsic condition (M = 4.12, SE –

0.09). This difference, 0.18, BCa 95% CI [-.129, 0.498] was also not significant t(278) =

1.24, p = .217.

Furthermore, the combination condition of intrinsic and extrinsic messages

showed that the respondents scored higher on the intrinsic manipulation check question

(M = 3.3, SE = 0.13) than the non-group (M = 3.20, SE = 0.09). However, this difference

0.10 BCa 95% CI [-0.227, 0.435] was not significant t(2787) = 0.62, p = .536.

Furthermore, the manipulation of the extrinsic content showed that the combination

condition did score higher on the extrinsic scale (M = 4.31, SE = 0.12) than the non-

combination condition (M = 4.10, SE = 0.09). This difference, 0,21, BCa 95% CI [-0.071,

0.511] was not significant either t(277) = 1.49, p = .441.

19

To test the manipulation of media type, a Pearson’s chi-square test was done to

assess the association between the media type condition and the manipulation check

question. There was a significant association between media type condition and the type

of message answered to that manipulation check χ2 (4) = 220.92, p < .001. In sum, the

results show that the manipulation of CSR content type failed, while the media type

manipulation did succeed.

To test if any there would be any other variables that might influence the data,

media use, media credibility and non-company source credibility were measured as

control variables. Table 6 (see Appendix C) shows the means, standard deviations and

correlations of the dependent and control variables. A Kendall’s tau non-parametric

correlation was conducted, as this is most excellent since not all control variables had a

normal distribution (Field, 2013). The control variable media use showed no significant

relations with any of the dependent variables. Media credibility did show a significant

relation to reputation, = .114, p = <.01. Non-company source credibility showed a

significant relation to both reputation, = .205, p = < 001, and positive secondary

reactions, = .103, p = <.05. These relations will be taken into account when discussing

the effects.

4.3 Test of hypotheses

With regard to the dependent variable reputation, it was expected that the combined

message of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation would have a more positive effect on

reputation, as suggested in hypothesis 1a. Furthermore, hypothesis 3a states that CSR

communication via a non-company source should have a more positive effect on

reputation than communication via Facebook, which in turn has a more positive effect

than via a news article. These hypotheses have been tested with a 3 (CSR content,

intrinsic, extrinsic or combined) x 3 (Media type, Facebook, news article or non-

company source) factorial ANOVA. The results showed no significant effect or CSR

content type on reputation, F (2, 271) = 1.99, p = .138, nor was there any significant

relation between media type and reputation, F (2, 271) = 0.681, p = .507. Therefore,

hypothesis 1a and 3a cannot be accepted. These results thereby contradict the belief

that the combining intrinsic and extrinsic motivations in a CSR communication message

20

have a more positive effect on stakeholder outcomes, such as reputation (Du et al., 2010;

Ellen et al., 2006; Forehand & Grier, 2003).

Furthermore, hypothesis 1b suggests that the combined intrinsic and extrinsic

messages lead to more secondary communication than intrinsic messages or extrinsic

messages alone. Additionally, it is expected that communicating CSR content via a non-

company source leads to more secondary communication than via Facebook, which in

turn leads to more secondary communication than via a news article, as stated in

hypothesis 3b. This was assessed with a 3 (CSR content, intrinsic, extrinsic or combined)

x 3 (Media type, Facebook, news article or non-company source) factorial ANOVA that

showed no significant of neither CSR content type, F (2, 271) = 0.376, p = .688, nor media

type, F (2, 271) = 4.05, p = 1.757, in relation to secondary communication. This opposes

the belief that a neutral, non-company source, has a more positive effect on stakeholder

outcomes such as in this case reputation and secondary communication (Du et al., 2010;

Yoon et al., 2006).

With regard to the third dependent variable secondary reactions, hypothesis 1c

states that the combined intrinsic and extrinsic messages lead to more positive

secondary reactions than intrinsic or extrinsic messages. A one-way independent

ANOVA was conducted to test this hypothesis. This, however, showed no significant

results of CSR content on positive secondary reactions (F (2, 277) = 1.17, p = .313).

Contrary to hypothesis 1c, it is expected that CSR communication via a non-

company source leads to less negative secondary reactions than communication via

Facebook, which in turn leads to fewer negative secondary reactions than via a news

article, as stated in hypothesis 3c. A one-way independent ANOVA showed a significant

relation of media type on negative secondary reactions. A planned contrast showed that

a non-company source did not significantly decrease negative secondary reactions

compared to Facebook and a news article, t(129.95) = -1.51, p = .133. However, it did

reveal a rather unexpected results as the news article condition significantly decreases

the chance of negative secondary reactions compared to Facebook, t(196,94) = 2.30, p =

.022, r = .16. Because this is not in line with the stated hypothesis, it cannot be accepted

but does offer some insights for future research.

Besides the effects of CSR content and media type on the dependent variables, a

moderation effect of expectation fulfilment was expected on CSR content in relation to

reputation, secondary communication and secondary reactions. The Hayes PROCESS

21

tool was used to test this moderation effect (Field, 2013). Even though an interaction

effect was expected, expectation fulfilment did not show any significant moderation

effect between CSR content and reputation, b = 0.064, 95% CI [-0.083, 0.211], t = 0.86, p

> .05, secondary communication, b = -0.113, 95% CI [-0.397, 0.171], t = -0.78, p > .05, or

secondary reactions, b = -0.015, 95% CI [-0.225, 0.195], t = -0.14, p > .05. This is also not

in line with theory that suggests that stakeholder expectation fulfilment holds an

influence on how stakeholders perceive an organization (Siltaoja, 2006; Yoon et al.,

2006). The theoretical application of these findings will be discussed in the next chapter.

22

5 Conclusion and Discussion

5.1 Discussion of findings

The general research question of this study is “What are the combined effects of CSR

communication content and media type on reputation, secondary communication and

reactions moderated by fulfilment of stakeholder expectations? To examine this effect in

this experimental study, hypotheses were stated, formulated from the basis of a

theoretical background study.

The independent variables CSR communication content and media type showed

no significant relation to reputation whatsoever. This is contrary to the belief that

involvement in CSR can enhance favourable corporate reputation among stakeholders

(Fombrun, 2005) and can even help against financial losses (Schnietz & Epstein, 2005)

in general. More specifically related to CSR, it contradicts a study done by Du et al.

(2010) that suggests that emphasizing both the social and business interests, as well as

acknowledging benefits a company gains from interacting in the CSR activity (thus

combining both intrinsic and extrinsic motives) should have a more positive effect on a

company’s CSR communication outcomes. There has already been a lot of discussion

among scholars who claimed that simply involvement in CSR activities and

communicating about it does not have direct effect on reputation. As CSR is nowadays

very often seen as a managerial instrument to enhance reputation (Mutch & Aiken,

2009; Schultz & Wehmeier, 2010), the realization that this would not have the desired

effect calls for a more critical look on CSR as part of corporate communication

initiatives. This thus raises the question whether or not the dysfunctional effects of CSR

as elaborated on in the theoretical background study are stronger than initially thought.

One of the dysfunctional effects that seems to have a strong connection to CSR

communication is distrust. Since distrust of stakeholders can lead to a downward spiral

of legitimacy (Schultz & Wehmeier, 2010) and thereby diminishing a favourable position

in the stakeholders’ mind, the ‘inside-out approach’ by Morsing, Schultz & Nielsen

(2008) might offer a more sophisticated approach. This approach suggests ensuring the

commitment of employees first before communicating about CSR activities publicly and

23

only communicate about activities that are related to employees (Morsing et al., 2008).

This can form a basis of trust and commitment, thereby encouraging employees to act as

important stakeholders which in turn can lead to more positive trustworthy

communication about the organizations to others (Morsing et al., 2008). This is also

argued by Gray & Balmer (1998), in the sense that a positive reputation among

employees can have significant importance since employees can play a crucial role in

representing the organization to external stakeholders. This ‘inside-out approach’

would therefore be a more sophisticated one than simply one-way communication and

advertising towards stakeholders, as this probably raises more distrust.

Furthermore, the hypotheses related to secondary communication and secondary

reactions did not show any significance either. This could be due to the fact that the

messages were not very personal since on social media people tend to share only the

messages that concern them, their friends or matters that come close to the heart.

However, a personal message by a non-company source did not show any significance

either and that is remarkable since that is very personal and found to be the most

excellent model in CSR communication (Du et al., 2010; Yoon et al., 2006). The rise of

social media and the amount of messages we post on Facebook, Twitter or LinkedIn

every day have perhaps led us to belief that people would be likely to forward any kind

of message anytime since it can be done with just one click of the mouse.

However, the study results did show an unexpected effect of the news article

condition on secondary reactions. The results showed that people tend to be less willing

to react negatively to a news article message than one received via Facebook or a non-

company source. This result contradicts the assumption of this study that a non-

company source would be the most excellent communication source (Du et al., 2010;

Yoon et al., 2006). Furthermore, it is not in line with the results of a study done on

secondary communication and reactions by Schultz (2011), which proved that people in

the social media condition were less likely to talk negatively about a company than

respondents who read a newspaper article. However, this does give support to the

choice of a more one-way strategy of CSR communication since it minimizes dialogue

and thereby possibly the chance of a backfire effect of CSR. Since the field of secondary

communication and reactions is still relatively new, especially in relation to CSR

communication, future research has to prove whether or not there are variables

24

influencing the willingness of people to forward or react to messages they receive via

different sources.

Additionally, an interaction effect of stakeholder expectation fulfilment on CSR

communicated content was a third sub question in this study. The results showed no

significance of this moderator on CSR content and reputation and the willingness of

stakeholders to communicate or react to the content communicated. This might be

explained by the fact that expectation fulfilment is not a strong enough moderator in this

case, however these results do contradict Siltoaja (2006) who relates reputation to

stakeholder expectations. Yoon et al. (2006) already proved that a corporate image

could only be improved when the CSR activities are perceived as sincere because, when

this is not the case, this could lead to a ‘backfire effect’.

It is very probably that this backfire effect is related to stakeholder scepticism

instead of stakeholder expectations. Distrust or so-called stakeholder scepticism could

perhaps proof to be an important moderator between CSR communicated content and

desired outcomes for the company, as this is one of the major dysfunctional effects of

CSR communication. Even though stakeholders might claim to want to know about CSR

activities, they can also quickly become suspicious of a company when it actively

communicates about it (Du et al., 2010).

Furthermore, media credibility and non-company source credibility seemed to

correlate highly with reputation. Previous research has shown that source credibility

can have an effect on persuasion and whether or not the target audience has a

favourable attitude towards the company (Tormala, Brinol & Petty, 2006). Source

credibility might therefore also prove to be an important influence on CSR

communication effectiveness. It can therefore be argued that companies need to take

more into account than perhaps initially thought when it comes to CSR communication.

In sum, the results of this study showed that there is no relation between CSR

content and media type on reputation and the willingness of stakeholders to

communicate or react to the CSR message communicated to them. However, this study

did try to offer more insights in how to address a CSR strategy and the role of message

content and media type in this matter. The shifting power of the stakeholder does force

companies to communicate and involve them in their business activities in a different

manner. However, future research is needed to provide more and other insights into

that perspective and whether or not there is a relation between CSR content

25

communicated and media type on variables that might influence stakeholders’

perceptions and behaviour.

5.3 Limitations and future research

This study has several limitations that will provide directions and thoughts for future

research. The manipulation of the experimental stimuli have not proven successful and

thereby probably underlying the non-significance of the hypotheses. Since the message

types of intrinsic and extrinsic motives have not been researched in relation to CSR in

prior studies, the stimuli had to be developed. Even though a pre-test of the stimulus

material was conducted and the messages adjusted accordingly, it still failed to have the

desired effect. It is therefore suggested for future research to conduct more testing on

intrinsic, extrinsic and combined message types in relation to CSR should this

experiment be reproduced. The messages could have been stronger in their content and

statements about the CSR activity in question.

Additionally, a fake company (Company X) was created with only a small and

very general description given about the company. This would mean that the

participants have no connection to the company in the manipulation what so ever and

thereby perhaps not caring about what it communicates. Using an existing company

with either a more positive or negative image or one that is already in the mind-set of

the respondents might have a stronger effect in future research on reputation and

willingness to communicate or react to messages.

Furthermore, the numbers of participants in the conditions were not equal.

Research group 6 had only 22 participants while group 1 had 37 participants in its

condition. This caused unequal variances in the research groups and thereby perhaps

some bias in the study. However, this was controlled for in the conducted analyses but it

is advised to have equal numbers of participants in each condition in subsequent

studies.

A general limitation of the study could have been that the concepts measured

were too broad. More research is needed on secondary communication and reactions, as

these are still relatively new concepts in the age of digitalisation and social media. Not

only considering traditional and new media, but also non-company sources are not to be

underestimated. Even though this study failed to find evidence of the influence of a non-

26

company source on secondary communication and reactions, future research is needed

to further elaborate on this concept, especially in relation to CSR where concepts as trust

and sincerity play an important role in stakeholder assessments of companies.

Reputation also still remains a very general notion for example and difficult to assess.

Where secondary communication and reactions are very much related, reputation

remains a very distant concept related to those variables. Furthermore, it is also advised

to take scepticism into account as an important moderator in relation to CSR

communicated content and corporate reputation in future research.

This study attempted to research relatively new concepts such as CSR message

types and secondary communication and thereby adding to the field of CSR and

communication research. Especially the relation between message type and CSR

outcomes need further investigation and it is therefore advised to take the suggestions

for future research as given here into considerations. This study aims to motivate future

researchers to study this concept more intensively and thereby contributing to a better

understanding of the effect of CSR communication on companies’ stakeholders.

27

6 References:

Anderson, R.C., (2005, June 22). On Responsibility in the private sector. The

Second International Conference on Gross National Happiness. Speech conducted from St.

Francis Xavier University, Nova Scotia. Retrieved from:

http://gpiatlantic.org/conference/proceedings/anderson.htm

Alcaniz, E.B., Caceres, R.C., & Perez, R.C., (2010). Alliances between brands and

social causes: The influence of company credibility on social responsibility image.

Journal of Business Ethics, 96, 169–186. doi 10.1007/s10551-010-0461-x.

Argenti, P. A., Druckenmiller, B., (2004). Reputation and the corporate brand.

Corporate Reputation Review, 6 (4), 368-374.

Carroll, A. (1991). The pyramid of corporate social responsibility: Toward the moral

management of organizational stakeholders Business Horizons, 34 (4), 39–48.

doi.org/10.1016/0007-6813(91)90005-G

Colleoni, E. (2013). CSR communication strategies for organizational legitimacy in

social media. Corporate Communications: An International Journal, 18 (2), 228–248.

Du, S., Bhattacharya, C.B., & Sen, S. (2010). Maximizing Business Returns to

Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR): The Role of CSR Communication. International

Journal of Management Reviews. doi: 10.1111/j.1468-2370.2009.00276.x

Ellen, P.S., Webb, D.J. & Mohr, L.A. (2006). Building corporate associations: consumer

attributions for corporate socially responsible program. Journal of the Academy of

Marketing Science, 34, 147–157. doi: 10.1177/0092070305284976

Fieseler, C., Fleck, M., & Meckel, M. (2010). Corporate social responsibility in the

blogosphere. Journal of Business Ethics 91, 599-614.

Fombrun, C.J. (2005). Building corporate reputation through CSR initiatives:

Evolving standards. Corporate Reputation Review, 8 (1), 7-11.

Gotsi, M., & Wilson, A.M. (2001). Corporate reputation: seeking a definition.

Corporate Communications: An International Journal, 6 (1), 24-30.

Groenland, E. A. G. (2002). Qualitative research to validate the RQ-dimensions.

Corporate Reputation Review, 4 (4), 308-315.

Grunig, J. E., Grunig, L.A., Sriramesh, K., Huang, Y., & Lyra, A. (1995). Models of public

relations in an international setting. Journal of Public Relations Research, 7 (3), 63-186.

28

Ho, J.Y.C., & Dempsey, M., (2010). Viral marketing: Motivations to forward online

content. Journal of Business Research, 63, 1000–1006. doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2008.08.010

Kaplan, A.M., & Haenlein, M. (2010). Users of the world, unite! The challenges and

opportunities of social media. Business Horizons, 53, 59 - 68.

doi:10.1016/j.bushor.2009.09.003

Kietzmann J.H., Hermkens, K., McCarthy, I.P., & Silvestre, B.S. (2011). Social media?

Get serious! Understanding the functional building blocks of social media. Business

Horizons, 54, 241-251. doi:10.1016/j.bushor.2011.01.005

Morsing, M., & Schultz, M. (2006). Corporate social responsibility communication:

stakeholder information, response and involvement strategies. Business Ethics: A

European Review, 15, 323–338. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8608.2006.00460.x

Morsing, M, Schultz, M., & Nielsen, K.U., (2008) The ‘Catch 22’ of communicating CSR:

Findings from a Danish study. Journal of Marketing Communications, 14 (2), 97-111. doi:

10.1080/13527260701856608

Mutch, N., & Aitken, R. (2009). Being fair and being seen to be fair: Corporate

reputation and CSR partnerships. Australasian Marketing Journal, 17 (2). 92.

Nguyen, N. & Leblanc, G. (2001). Corporate image and corporate reputation in

customers' retention decisions in services. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 8,

227-236.

Ryan, R.M., & Deci, E.L. (2000). Intrinsic and extrinsic motivations: Classic definitions

and new directions. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25, 54–67.

doi:10.1006/ceps.1999.1020

Schnietz, K.E., & Epstein, M., (2005). Exploring the financial value of a reputation for

corporate social responsibility curing a crisis. Corporate Reputation Review, 7 (4), 327.

Schultz, F., Castello, I., & Morsing, M. (2013). The construction of corporate social

responsibility in network societies: A communication view. Journal of Business Ethics,

115 (4), 681-692.

Schultz, F., Utz, S. & Göritz, A. (2011). Is the medium the message? Perceptions of and

reactions to crisis communication via Twitter, Blogs and Traditional Media. Public

Relations Review, 37 (1), 20-27. doi:10.1016/j.pubrev.2010.12.001

Schultz, F., & Wehmeier, S. (2010). Institutionalization of corporate social

responsibility. Corporate Communications: An International Journal, 15 (1), 9-29. doi:

10.1108/13563281011016813

29

Siltaoja, M. E., (2006). Value priorities as combining core factors between CSR and

reputation – a qualitative study. Journal of Business Ethics, 68, 91-111. doi

10.1007/s10551-006-9042-4

Suchman, M.C. (1995). Managing legitimacy: Strategic and institutional approaches.

The Academy of Management Review, 20 (3), 571.

Tormala, Z. L., Brinol, P., & Petty, R. E., (2006). When credibility attacks: The reverse

impact of source credibility on persuasion. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 42,

684-691. doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2005.10.005

Walsh, G., Beatty, S.E., & Shiu, E.M.K., (2009). The customer-based corporate

reputation scale: Replication and short form. Journal of Business Research, 62, 924–930

Yoon, Y., Giirhan-Canli, Z. & Schwarz, N. (2006.) The effect of corporate social

responsibility (CSR) activities on companies with bad reputations. Journal of Consumer

Psychology, 16 (4), 377-390.

30

Appendix A

Figure 1. Conceptual model

CSR communication channels:

Online news article

Facebook Non-company

source

Corporate reputation

Secondary communication

CSR communication content

Intrinsic Extrinsic Intrinsic +

Extrinsic

Fulfilment stakeholder expectations

Secondary reactions

31

Appendix B

Welkom bij dit onderzoek! Dit onderzoek maakt deel uit van mijn scriptie voor de Master Communicatiewetenschappen aan de Vrije Universiteit van Amsterdam. Deze enquête is volledig anoniem. Uw privacy wordt dus gewaarborgd. Het invullen van de vragenlijst zal maximaal 10 minuten duren. U krijgt tijdens de enquête 1 bericht te lezen en wij vragen u dit aandachtig te lezen en dan de vragen in te vullen. Er zijn uiteraard geen goede of slechte antwoorden. Voor vragen en/of opmerkingen kunt u contact opnemen met Vera Engelbertink via v.engelbertink@student.vu.nl. Alvast hartelijk dank voor uw deelname! Met vriendelijke groet, Vera Engelbertink Klik op >> om te starten met de enquête. Weet u wat Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) is?

1. 0 Ja 2. 0 Nee

Corporate Social Responsibility (ook wel Maatschappelijk Verantwoord Ondernemen) is een integrale visie op de bedrijfsvoering van een bedrijf. Dit betekent dat bedrijven ook economische, wettelijke, ethische en filantropische verantwoordelijkheden in acht nemen bij hun bedrijfsvoering. Expectation fulfilment (general) Geef aan in hoeverre u het met de volgende stellingen eens bent.

3. Ik verwacht van bedrijven dat ze aan Corporate Social Responsibility doen Helemaal niet mee eens 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Helemaal mee eens

4. Ik verwacht dat wanneer bedrijven aan Corporate Social Responsibility doen, ze op een eerlijke wijze over hun activiteiten communiceren.

Helemaal niet mee eens 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Helemaal mee eens

32

Hierna volgt een bericht over Bedrijf X. Bedrijf X is een grote levensmiddelen fabrikant van alledaagse producten zoals tandpasta en afwasmiddel. Wij vragen u dit bericht volledig te lezen. Manipulation stimuli Facebook/Newsarticle:

Facebook/Intrinsic Facebook/Extrinsic Facebook/Intrinsic+Extrinsic News article/Intrinsic News article/Extrinsic News article/Intrinsic+Extrinsic

Or Manipulation stimuli non-company source: Van een vriend(in) krijgt u een e-mail. Hij/zij stuurt dit omdat hij/zij denkt dat u dit wel interessant vindt en het graag met u wil delen. In de e-mail staat het volgende verhaal:

Non-company source/Intrinsic Non-company source/Extrinsic Non-company source/Intrinsic+Extrinsic

Expectation fulfilment Stel dat u een klant bent van Bedrijf X. Beantwoordt met dit in gedachten de volgende vragen. Geef aan in hoeverre u het eens bent met de volgende stellingen over Bedrijf X:

5. Dit bedrijf voldoet aan mijn verwachtingen van Corporate Social Responsibility die ik heb als klant

Helemaal niet mee eens 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Helemaal mee eens 6. Ik vind dat dit bedrijf goed communiceert over zijn Corporate Social

Responsibility activiteiten Helemaal niet mee eens 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Helemaal mee eens Reputation Geef aan in hoeverre u het eens bent met de volgende stellingen over Bedrijf X:

7. Ik heb een goed gevoel over dit bedrijf Helemaal niet mee eens 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Helemaal mee eens

8. Ik bewonder en respecteer dit bedrijf Helemaal niet mee eens 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Helemaal mee eens

33

9. Ik heb vertrouwen in dit bedrijf Helemaal niet mee eens 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Helemaal mee eens

10. Dit bedrijf steunt goede doelen Helemaal niet mee eens 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Helemaal mee eens

11. Dit bedrijf heeft een duidelijke visie voor de toekomst Helemaal niet mee eens 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Helemaal mee eens

12. Dit bedrijf lijkt mij een goed bedrijf om voor te werken Helemaal niet mee eens 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Helemaal mee eens

13. Dit bedrijf is een milieuvriendelijk bedrijf Helemaal niet mee eens 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Helemaal mee eens

14. Dit bedrijf bied producten en services van hoge kwaliteit Helemaal niet mee eens 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Helemaal mee eens

15. Dit bedrijf zou zijn winst verminderen om te zorgen voor een schoon milieu Helemaal niet mee eens 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Helemaal mee eens Secondary communication Hoe waarschijnlijk is het dat u …

16. Dit bericht deelt met anderen Zeer onwaarschijnlijk 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Zeer waarschijnlijk

17. Uw vrienden over dit bericht vertelt Zeer onwaarschijnlijk 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Zeer waarschijnlijk

18. U reageert op dit bericht Zeer onwaarschijnlijk 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Zeer waarschijnlijk Secondary reactions Hoe waarschijnlijk is het dat u…

19. Iets negatiefs vertelt over Bedrijf X Zeer onwaarschijnlijk 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Zeer waarschijnlijk

20. Bedrijf X aanraadt bij anderen Zeer onwaarschijnlijk 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Zeer waarschijnlijk Control variables Media use

21. Geef aan hoeveel uur per dag u onderstaande media gebruikt. Televisie

o 0 – 24 uur Kranten

o 0 – 24 uur Internet

34

o 0 – 24 uur Email

o 0 – 24 uur Facebook

o 0 – 24 uur Twitter

o 0 – 24 uur LinkedIn

o 0 – 24 uur Online nieuws websites

o 0 – 24 uur

Media credibility Geef aan hoe betrouwbaar u de volgende media vindt:

22. Televisie Helemaal niet betrouwbaar 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Heel betrouwbaar

23. Internet Helemaal niet betrouwbaar 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Heel betrouwbaar

24. Email Helemaal niet betrouwbaar 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Heel betrouwbaar

25. Facebook Helemaal niet betrouwbaar 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Heel betrouwbaar

26. Twitter Helemaal niet betrouwbaar 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Heel betrouwbaar

27. LinkedIn Helemaal niet betrouwbaar 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Heel betrouwbaar

28. Online nieuws websites Helemaal niet betrouwbaar 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Heel betrouwbaar Non-company source credibility Geef aan in hoeverre u het eens bent met de volgende stellingen:

29. Ik neem snel een verhaal aan voor waarheid als een vriend(in) mij het verhaal vertelt

Helemaal niet mee eens 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Helemaal mee eens

30. Ik vind een verhaal snel betrouwbaar als het van een vriend(in) komt Helemaal niet mee eens 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Helemaal mee eens Manipulation check Geef aan in hoeverre u het me de volgende stellingen eens bent.

35

31. Bedrijf X haalt geen bijkomende voordelen uit de deelname in deze CSR activiteit (intrinsic)

Helemaal niet mee eens 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Helemaal mee eens

32. Bedrijf X is open over welke voordelen het zelf haalt uit deelname in deze CSR activiteit (extrinsic)

Helemaal niet mee eens 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Helemaal mee eens

33. Bedrijf X is eerlijk over welke voordelen het zelf haalt uit deelname in deze CSR activiteit (extrinsic)

Helemaal niet mee eens 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Helemaal mee eens

34. Wat voor soort bericht heb je gelezen?

0 Facebook post 0 Online nieuws artikel 0 Email van een vriend(in)

Demographics

35. Wat is uw geslacht?

0 Man 0 Vrouw

36. Wat is uw leeftijd? 37. Wat is uw hoogst genoten opleiding (voltooid of nog mee bezig)?

0 VMBO 0 HAVO/VWO 0 MBO 0 HBO 0 WO 0 Geen diploma 0 Anders, namelijk ….

38. Wat omschrijft u het beste?

Ik ben: 0 Student 0 Student en werkend 0 Werkend parttime 0 Werkend fulltime 0 Werkloos 0 Gepensioneerd 0 Vrijwilliger 0 Anders namelijk:

36

Hartelijk dank voor uw deelname aan dit onderzoek! U heeft bijgedragen aan een onderzoek dat gaat over het effect van CSR gecommuniceerde content en media type op reputatie en in hoeverre mensen bereid zijn hierover verdere informatie te verspreiden en te reageren. Vergeet niet nog voor de laatste keer op >> te drukken. Pas dan worden de antwoorden definitief verwerkt! Als u nog vragen en/of opmerkingen heeft of geïnteresseerd bent in dit onderzoek, neem dan contact met mij op via v.engelbertink@student.vu.nl. Met vriendelijke groet, Vera Engelbertink

37

Appendix C

Table 3 Summary of Principal axis factor analysis (oblique rotation) of Secondary communication

(N = 280)

How likely is it that you will… Secondary communication

1. Share this message with others. .93

2. Tell your friends about this message. .87

3. You will react to this message. .81

Table 2 Summary of Principal axis factor analysis (oblique rotation) of Reputation (N = 280)

Personal

perceptions

Company

characteristics

1. I have a good feeling about this company. .92

2. I trust this company. .91

3. I admire and respect this company. .81

4. This company has a clear vision for the future. .67

5. This company looks like a good company to work for. .62

6. This company supports good causes. .60

7. This company is an environmentally responsible company. .86

8. This company offers high-quality products and services. .82

9. This company would reduce its profits to ensure a clean

environment

.63

38

Table 4 Summary of Principal axis factor analysis (orthogonal rotation) of Expectation fulfilment

(N = 280)

Specific General

1. This company meets my expectation of Corporate

Social Responsibility I have as a client.

.86

2. I belief this company communicates well about its

Corporate Social Responsibility activities.

.78

3. I expect that companies communicate about it in an

honest way when they are conducting Corporate Social

Responsibility.

.78

4. I expect from companies that they conduct in Corporate

Social Responsibility.

.76

Table 5. Cronbach’s Alpha of the research scales

Dependent scales Number of statements α

Reputation 8 .90

Secondary communication 3 .90

Control scales

Non-company source reliability 2 .87

Manipulation scale

Manipulation check extrinsic 2 .91

Moderator scale

Expectation fulfilment 4 .76

39

40

Appendix D

Figure 2. Facebook/Intrinsic stimulus

41

Figure 3. Facebook/Extrinsic stimulus

42

Figure 4. Facebook/Intrinsic+Extrinsic stimulus

43

Figure 5. News article/Intrinsic stimulus

44

Figure 6. News article/Extrinsic stimulus

45

Figure 7. News article/Intrinsic+Extrinsic stimulus

46

Figure 8. Non-company source/Intrinsic stimulus

47

Figure 9. Non-company source/Extrinsic stimulus

48

Figure 10. Non-company source/Intrinsic+Extrinsic stimulus